Chinnadurai T v. The District Collector

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.08.2024

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI T.Chinnadurai, S/o.Thirugnanasambandam, Hereditary Trustee, Sri Vembadi Sudalai Mada Swamy Temple, Kottarakurichi Village, Srivaikundam Taluk, Thoothukudi ... Appellant/Writ petitioner -vs1.The District Collector, Collectorate, 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur, 3.The Tahsildar, Eral Taluk, 4.Mr.D.Muthukaruppan @ Velayutham 5.T.Rajendran 6.D.Durai 7.D.Vaikundaramasamy @ Kumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the common order dated 09.07.2024 in W.P(MD)No.9400 of 2024. For Appellant :

Mr.K.K.Samy

For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.SRA.Ramachandran, Additional Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

[Judgment of the Court was made by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.] Challenge in this writ appeal is to the order of the learned single Judge issuing certain directions in respect of management of a private temple.

2. Admittedly, the right of Trusteeship of the temple is subject matter of proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A peace committee meeting was conducted during the pendency of the second appeal regarding the right to manage the temple and certain agreement had been reached between the parties. Complaining that the said agreement has been violated, the instant writ petition came to be filed.

3. The learned single Judge has elaborately considered the scope of the agreement between the parties and had issued certain directions. Aggrieved, the petitioner in W.P(MD)No.9400 of 2024 is on appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3.

5. We find that the very writ petition is misconceived. A right to manage a private temple is neither a public right nor there is any public issue involved to enable this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the parties had agreed upon to certain interim arrangements pending final conclusion of the civil proceedings and if there is any violation, it will be open to the parties to approach the competent Court where the civil proceedings are pending. In our considered opinion, invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is total misconception. The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to resolve private disputes. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.

[R.S.M., J.] [L.V.G., J.] 06.08.2024 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet: Yes PM To:

1.The District Collector, Collectorate, 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchendur, 3.The Tahsildar, Eral Taluk,

R.SUBRAMANIAN , J.

and L.VICTORIA GOWRI , J.

pm

06.08.2024